Hokay, I decided to let this simmer for a while before I said anything, because I know that everything I say will be yanked out of context and the worst meaning possible will be put on it. But hey, Its 12:33 am in the middle of a storm, so we migh as well have at it
jcolvin2 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 11:55 pm
Suranis wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 10:01 pm
Naturally, not having to do good works proved rather popular.
That seems a rather cynical take on Luther. While Luther believed salvation could only be obtained through faith, reasoning that one who only makes an outward show - good works - has not found salvation, he was emphatic that true faith would naturally result in "good works" being performed by the believer.
The man on the street hypocrite, like me, still had to perform good works to show he was among the faithful.
AAAAND you pulled that out of context, of course. Id you had included all the conversation, it was clear that when I said that I was talking about the various Protestant Denominations that sprang up from Luther - which were very happy to take Luther's early screeds against the whole concept of Good works enabling salvation, and go "faith alone! Sounds good! Blood of Jesus alone We don't have to do anything else!" Which was pretty popular.
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:47 am
Suranis can correct me, but I recall from my Catholic education and a sermon at a Lutheran Church on Martin Luther Day, Luther and others were troubled by the Catholic Church's practice of simony, selling indulgences, and other church money making practices. [Simony (/ˈsɪməni/) is the act of selling church offices and roles or sacred things. It is named after Simon Magus,[1] who is described in the Acts of the Apostles as having offered two disciples of Jesus payment in exchange for their empowering him to impart the power of the Holy Spirit to anyone on whom he would place his hands. The term extends to other forms of trafficking for money in "spiritual things".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simony]
And here we go with what is probably a cynical take on Luther, but is where my and proably greater Catholic perspectives are.
The whole thing started by Luther getting outraged by the church offering Indulgences for contributing to the Rebuilding and refurbishment of St Peter's Basilica in Rome. Because Luther rejected the whole thing about Good works leading to Salvation, actually offering a an indulgence for such a "good work" was anathema to him. So he started writing letter upon letter screaming about it as "Selling Indulgences." Hence why I quoted His line from Thesis 25 "“He is not righteous who does much, but he who, without, work, believes much in Christ.”" He literally was saying that contributing to that rebuilding did not make you rightous in any way, so therefore the church MUST be selling indulgences! Q E D.
Now, you can possibly argue back and forth about whether contributing to a good work was "Selling Indulgences" but frankly, it was not. The Money was not going to the Church. It was going to the Trademen and builders that were repairing St Peters Basilica. It would be like the church offering indulgences for the rebuilding of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. You could say it was roundabout selling it, but as the quotes above show to the church it was simply rewarding a good work, and the money was going into a fund that was being used for the good work. The Church as an organization was not making a dime.
The Church's actual money came from Tithes etc, which Lutheranism very enthusiastically followed on with, thank you very much.
As for the whole thing about Simony etc, I don't know any examples of it happening, though I'm sure it happened now and again when corrupt Popes were on the throne. But, again that was Luther simply stuck on "How dare you reward good works ye bastards!!" so everything he said was coloured by that outrage over Peter's Basilica and other "good works" stuff the church was doing, and has to be understood in that context. He saw lots of stuff as corruption and selling salvation that simply were not.
Yes Luther tried to walk back good works later on by saying good works flowed from true faith, becasue he was made very uncomfortable by the implications of the "No need to do anything" monster he had turned loose. But that lead to people like John Calvin creating a society where people were judged to be "Pious, uncertain or Corrupt" based on their overt actions. People literally were put on lists where if you weren't seen to be doing X, Y and Z, you were on the bad list.
Rather than obeying Jesus when he said to do good works in secret, it became all about ostentatious appearances and social control. So the Protestant Churches became like the Pharisees that Jesus himself raged about, showing off the big bundles of Cash they were donating and overt displays of piety.
And Luther put the Churches under the control of the Political Leaders of the country, which was a big reason for the Spread of Protestantism. - Money. Suddenly the King had control of church lands, so the king could sell them off to the Lords, and start raking in the cash. That was one reason the push to return to Catholisism failed in England, as the powerful lords who now owned Church lands were not willing to give them up. So they had good motives to put up one hell of a fight against the Counter-Reformation. If Mary had had a Brain and magnanimously allowed the Lords to keep the Church lands, it probably would have succeeded. England was largely Catholic anyway.
*cont*
I'm not sure what race they were talking about. Human? (By the way, my husband and I knew at that time that we were not going to have children. I guess we were race suicide people.)
